20140547 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20130121

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:23 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- 601 East / Union County / SAW 2013 -00265 / EEP# 95756
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 601 E Approval Letter with Comments_2013- 00265.pdf
13 -0185
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources -
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
Water Quality Permitting Section
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [ mailto: Tyler.Crumbley(@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:23 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: bowers.todd(@epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric; Jones, Scott SAW; Marella Buncick
( Marella Buncick(@fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Cox, David R.; Pearce, Guy; Sollod, Steve;
Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Krebs, Rob; Mcdonald, Mike; Elliott, William A SAW; Wiesner, Paul;
Wilson, Travis W.; Homewood, Sue; Baker, Virginia; Chapman, Amy; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW;
Wheeler, Tracey L SAW; Greer, Emily C SAW; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: Approval Letter: NCEEP Mitigation Plan- 601 East / Union County / SAW 2013 -00265 /
EEP# 95756 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr. Baumgartner,
Attached is the approval letter for the 601 East Stream Restoration project in Union County,
along with all the comments that were generated during the IRT's review of the project on the
Mitigation Plan Review Portal.
*Please note that this letter approves the Draft mitigation plan, but also identifies
concerns with the Draft plan that should be addressed in the Final plan.
When the permit application is submitted for Nationwide Permit #27 authorization, a copy of
this letter should be included along with a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan. Also, please
ensure that the Final mitigation plan is posted to NCEEP's documents portal so that all
members of the IRT have access to the Final plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the process or the attached letter.
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Division
1

Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
(919) 846 -2564
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTTIONT OF 21 January, 2014
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the 601 East Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2013- 00265;
EEP IMS 9 95756
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the 601 East Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 3 January,
2014. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the
attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application
for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the
addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army
permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues
may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or
reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter,
the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919-
846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTR
,. �.. Y.1007509975
Date: 2014.01.21
09:13:10 - 05'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW -RG /H. Wicker
CESAW- RG -A /S. Kichefski
NCEEP /P. Wiesner

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Crumbley 6 January, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: 601 East- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: 601 East Stream Restoration Project, Union County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00265
NCEEP #: 95756
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 3 January, 2014
1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 19 December, 2013:
• As stated for previous projects, DWR continues to have concerns regarding restoration,
particularly P1 restoration, on incised intermittent channels (project proposes 350 LF of
P1 on Reach 1a). Our concern remains that constructing an offline channel at a higher
elevation can sometimes result in removing the groundwater discharge altogether,
converting a jurisdictional intermittent channel into a non - jurisdictional ephemeral
feature. It should be noted that credit loss (and the potential need for compensatory
mitigation) could result if the proposed work results in the conversion of an intermittent
stream to an ephemeral feature. DWR wants to ensure the written record for this
project includes our concern.
2. T. Crumbley, USACE, 2 January, 2014:
• The District concurs with the comment provided by NCDWR with regard to Priority 1
restoration on incised intermittent channels. During the field meeting on 29 January,
2013 several issues with the project were discussed:

a. There was concern from NCIRT on disconnecting the intermittent section of Reach
1a (above cross - section #1) from the groundwater source. It was stated that credits
will not be generated on reaches that have been converted from intermittent to
ephemeral.
b. It was suggested by the NCIRT to quantify the on -site sediment loss /bank erosion
prior to restoration and potentially tie a performance standard to incorporate on-
site reduction versus watershed input.
c. USFWS suggested planting dense shrubs along with trees on the outside /around the
BMP on ephemeral section of Reach 1a to prevent additional rill or gully formation.
Specifically utilizing species that will attenuate sediment.
d. USFWS also suggested that a neotropical migrant bird study be conducted prior to
construction.
• A brief discussion on impacts to existing wetlands is presented in the Draft plan, but any
impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting) to current waters of the U.S. (streams,
wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for and discussed in the Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of those waters must be
replaced on -site. (the conversion of ponds to stream is considered an impact, but the
functional uplift provided allows for this conversion to be conducted under NWP 27.
These impacts do, however need to be accounted for in the PCN).
• Section 9, pg. 46. Performance Standards: Should reference the "Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Stream and Wetland Mitigation" Dated November 7, 2011. (Section IV C.) *All
monitoring and performance standard requirements need to comply with this
EEP /District guidance unless the project was instituted prior to the release of this
guidance*
Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUT
RY.1007509975
Date: 2014.01.21
/s/ 09:13:34 - 05'00'
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist,
Regulatory Division